Re: about Wedgelayer 3.5 / Fat IP approaches

El 29/06/2004, a las 13:49, Brian E Carpenter escribió:

> Eik Nordmark wrote:
>>> what about cgas?
>>> They are locators, so you can use them for refferals to non multi6 
>>> apps and hosts, they allow to map from id to locators using reverse 
>>> dns, and they are crypto in nature
>>> seems a good candidate to me :-)
>> A downside of CGA approaches is that they would, on a global basis,
>> cast the /64 subnet prefix boundary in stone forever.
>> This is different than SeND which only assumes the /64 on a single 
>> link,
>> and one can envision SeND evolving to handle different subnet prefix 
>> lengths
>> over time.
>> Different people probably have very different level of concern for
>> "/64 forever in stone" ranging from it being a good simplification
>> to a fatal repeat of the 8 bit IPv4 network number + 24 bit host 
>> number
>> (before Class B and C was invented).
>
> Good point. The /64 boundary is only "architectural" in one place, 
> stateless
> autoconfig, and even that is a changeable decision.
>
> CGAs have other downsides for multihoming, too.
>

such as?

regards, marcelo

>    Brian
>